1. Compare and contrast the 4 major branches of Philosophy. (Metaphysics, Epistemology, Axiology, Logic) State their importance to education.


Metaphysics - The branch of philosophy which studies the nature of reality. Essential starting point in education, since metaphysics answers these essential questions: What is reality? What is life? What kind of entities are we? One can answer these questions by two methods: a) the scientific method or b) by feelings
The first method brings about a rational type of philosophy; the second method brings about any number of philosophies based on mysticism (all religions).

Epistemology - the branch of any philosophy which studies knowledge.
Epistemology is essential in education, since epistemology answers these kinds of questions: How do we know what we say we know? What is knowledge? What are the necessary means for acquiring knowledge?

Ethics (Axiology) is the branch of philosophy that studies the good. It is essential in education for learning moral precepts and values. Ethics answers questions like: "What is the good?" "How does man obtain the good?" "What actions must a man choose in order to achieve the good?" "Who determines what is good?"
. Logic is the method of reasoning based on the principle that a concept is correct if it does not contradict reality. It can be simply defined as the "art of non-contradictory thinking." Logic is necessary for studying any branch of philosophy and any aspect of knowledge. The lack of logical thinking equates to irrationality and in its extreme expression it equates to madness. Obviously, logic must be taught and it is an essential part of any kind of education because it is not automatic.

2. Define Philosophy of Education. How does it affect the educational system, school management and the teaching- learning process?
3. Education, philosophy of The inquiry into the ideas that dominate educational theory and policy. The central questions are what it is worthwhile or necessary to teach, and what are the best ways of doing it. Different views about human nature will influence answers to both questions. Rival metaphors include that of the young mind as an empty pot that needs filling up, versus the mind as an unexercised athlete that needs practice. The focus has often been Plato's question whether virtue can be taught, and this quickly spreads to include intellectual virtue. Plato's paradox from the Meno that you cannot understand what you do not know and therefore cannot set about discovering it is usually felt to be soluble (see learning paradox), but in practice education remains bedevilled by the fact that people missing it do not know what they are missing. The solution from the right is coercion and discipline; that from the left is to worry whether education involves discrimination, or indeed trespasses against the equal rights and dignity of the ignorant and stupid. Eminent philosophers who have written at length about education include Plato and Aristotle, Locke, Rousseau and Mill, and in the twentieth century, Dewey.
4.
Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/philosophy-of-education#ixzz1HZbOCI3u
5. Philosophy of education can refer to either the academic field of applied philosophy or to one of any educational philosophies that promote a specific type or vision of education.
6. As an academic field, philosophy of education is "the philosophical study of education and its problems...its central subject matter is education, and its methods are those of philosophy".[1] "The philosophy of education may be either the philosophy of the process of education or the philosophy of the discipline of education. That is, it may be part of the discipline in the sense of being concerned with the aims, forms, methods, or results of the process of educating or being educated; or it may be metadisciplinary in the sense of being concerned with the concepts, aims, and methods of the discipline."[2] As such, it is both part of the field of education and a field of applied philosophy, drawing from fields of metaphysics, epistemology, axiology and the philosophical approaches (speculative, prescriptive, and/or analytic) to address questions in and about pedagogy, education policy, and curriculum, as well as the process of learning, to name a few.[3] For example, it might study what constitutes upbringing and education, the values and norms revealed through upbringing and educational practices, the limits and legitimization of education as an academic discipline, and the relation between educational theory and practice.
7. Instead of being taught in philosophy departments, philosophy of education is usually housed in departments or colleges of education, similar to how philosophy of law is generally taught in law schools.[1] The multiple ways of conceiving education coupled with the multiple fields and approaches of philosophy make philosophy of education not only a very diverse field but also one that is not easily defined. Although there is overlap, philosophy of education should not be conflated with educational theory, which is not defined specifically by the application of philosophy to questions in education. Philosophy of education also should not be confused with philosophy education, the practice of teaching and learning the subject of philosophy.
8. An educational philosophy is a normative theory of education that unifies pedagogy, curriculum, learning theory, and the purpose of education and is grounded in specific metaphysical, epistemological, and axiological assumptions.
Describe the Philosophical movements during the Medieval Ages. How did they influence the modern Philippine educational System?

9. The culture of the Philippines reflects the complexity of the history of the Philippines through the blending of many diverse traditional Malay[1] heritage mixed with Spanish,[2] American and other Asian cultures.
10. Pre-Hispanic, and non-Christian Philippine cultures are derived from many native traditions of the Austronesian primitive tribes called Malayo-Polynesian or the Malay people. The prehistoric Philippine Mythology and Philippine indigenous culture was later influenced by the Malay cultures of Southeast Asia, accompanied by a mixture of Western-Christianity, Eastern-Islamic, Hinduism and Buddhism tradition.
11. Spanish colonization in the Philippines lasted from 1565 to 1898. Most of that time the islands were governed from Mexico and later directly from Spain. As a result, there is a significant amount of Spanish and Mexican influence in Philippine customs and traditions. Hispanic influences are visible in traditional Philippine folk music and dance, cuisine, festivities, religion, and language, though usually integrated with other influences. The most visible example of this are the Spanish names of Filipinos, which were given through a tax law (see: Alphabetical Catalog of Surnames), the thousands of Spanish loanwords in native languages such as Tagalog and Cebuano, and the majority Catholic religion.
12. Later, the Philippines was a territory of the United States from 1898 until 1946. American influences are evident in the use of the English language, and in contemporary pop culture, such as fast-food, music, film and basketball.
13. Other Asian ethnic groups such as the Chinese and Japanese have been settling in the Philippines since the colonial period and their influence is also present in the popularity of gambling games such mahjong, jueteng, Eskrima and other Asian cuisine.
14. Muslim Filipinos also celebrate their own customs and traditions. These groups follow a Philippine Islamic culture, and other Muslim recreation such as the Kali, Kulintang and Gamelan, are used by Islamic groups in the southern islands of Mindanao and Sulu archipelago.
15. During the Middle Ages (A.D. c. 450–c. 1500) in the Western world (non-Asian countries), the main philosophy was Scholasticism. Through this method Christian thinkers tried to reconcile their Christian faith with ancient Greek philosophies and worldly wisdom. Scholasticists attempted to find similarities among documents such as the Bible (Christian holy book) and philosophical works, using logical arguments to make their points.
16. The Scholastic movement was anticipated by Saint Augustine (A.D. 354–430), who lived during the time when Christianity was overtaking paganism (pre-Christian religions that honored many gods). Augustine, a Roman Catholic priest, sought to combine Christian faith and reason. He believed that if people are faithful, they will be rewarded with understanding, or wisdom. Among Augustine's major works are Confessions, On Genesis, City of...
Describe the philosophical movements during the renaissance in terms of educational goals, curricula, administration and supervision and methods of teaching.
The Renaissance

Medieval philosophy had culminated in the cumulative achievements of scholasticism, a grand system of thought developed by generations of patient scholars employing neoplatonic and Aristotelean philosophy in the service of traditional Christian theology. But by the end of the fifteenth century, confidence in the success of this enterprise had eroded, and many thinkers tried to make a fresh start by rejecting such extensive reliance on the authority of earlier scholars. Just as religious reformers challenged ecclesiastical authority and made individual believers responsible for their own relation to god, prominent Renaissance thinkers proposed an analogous elimination of all appeals to authority in education and science.
Educational practice was revolutionized by the recovery of ancient documents, the rejection of institutional authority, and renewed emphasis on individual freedom. The humanists expressed an enormous confidence in the power of reason as a source of profound understanding of human nature and of our place in the natural order. Giovanni Pico della Mirandola's Oration, for example, held forth the possibilities for a comprehensive new order of knowledge relying on human understanding without reference to divine revelation. For some, like Desiderius Erasmus and Marsillio Ficino, this spirit found expression in a return to careful study of classical texts in their own right, without relying on centuries of scholastic commentary. But for more revolutionary thinkers as diverse as Giordano Bruno and Francisco Suárez, humanism offered an opportunity to incorporate modern developments along with classical elements in entirely new systems of metaphysical knowledge.
The rise of the new science also offered a significant change in the prospects for human knowledge of the natural world. Copernicus argued on theoretical grounds for a heliocentric view of the universe, for which Kepler provided a more secure mathematical interpretation. Galileo contributed not only an impressive series of direct observations of both celestial and terrestrial motion but also a serious effort to explain and defend the new methods. By abandoning explanation in terms of final causes, by emphasizing the importance of observation, and by trying to develop quantified accounts of all, renaissance scientists began to develop the foundations of a thoroughly empirical view of the world.
This emerging emphasis on empirical methods permanently transformed study of the natural world. Making extensive use of sensory observations made possible by the development of new instrumentation fostered an urge to seek quantification of every phenomenon. There were exceptions like Herbert of Cherbury, who hoped that the natural light of common notions imprinted innately in every human being would provide perfect certainty as a foundation for Christianity. But most of the moderns gladly embraced the methods, style, and content of the new science.
The Skeptical Challenge
While the Renaissance encouraged abandonment of the benefits of scholastic learning, it could offer only the promise that new ways of thinking might one day suitably replace them. Along with high hopes for the achievement of human knowledge came significant doubts about its possibility. By recovering and translating the work of Sextus Empiricus, humanist scholars introduced the tradition of classical skepticism as an element of modern thought. Turning the power of reasoning against itself at every opportunity, the Pyrrhonists proposed that we suspend all belief whenever we find ourselves capable of doubting the truth of what we suppose. The trouble is that very little beyond immediate personal experience can pass this test of indubitability.
The greatest exponent of modern Pyrrhonism was Michel de Montaigne, whose Essays (1580, 1588) gave prominent place to skeptical arguments. Any attempt to achieve knowledge is misguided, on his view, because it arrogantly supposes that the natural world and everything in it exists only for the satisfaction of our idle curiosity. Since the evidence of our senses is notoriously liable to error and the reliability of logical reasoning cannot be demonstrated without circularity, we would indeed be better off to doubt everything and rest comfortably with mere opinion. Even the new science offers no hope, Montaigne argued, since it must eventually be surpassed in the same way that it has overcome the old. These concerns created a challenge to which modern philosophers were bound to respond.
The Central Questions
Against the background of humanistic scholarship, the rise of the new science, and the challenge of skepticism, modern philosophers were preoccupied with philosophical issues in several distinct areas:
• Epistemology: Can human beings achieve any certain knowledge of the world? If so, what are the sources upon which genuine knowledge depends? In particular, how does sense perception operate in service of human knowledge?
• Metaphysics: What kinds of things ultimately compose the universe? In particular, what are the distinctive features of human nature, and how do they function in relation to each other and the world at large? Does god exist?
• Ethics: By what standards should human conduct be evaluated? Which actions are morally right, and what motivates us to perform them? Is moral life possible without the support of religious belief?
• Metaphilosophy: Does philosophy have a distinctive place in human life generally? What are the proper aims and methods of philosophical inquiry?
Although not every philosopher addressed all of these issues and some philosophers had much more to say about some issues than others, our survey of modern philosophy will trace the content of their responses to questions of these basic sorts.
Francis Bacon
British politician and entrepeneur Francis Bacon, for example, expressed the modern spirit well in a series of works designed to replace stultified Aristoteleanism with improved methods for achieving truth. Assuming that the difficulties we experience are invariably the results of poor training and can therefore be eliminated, Bacon promised that the adoption of more appropriate habits of thinking will enable individual thinkers to transcend them.
Believing that the first step toward knowledge is to identify its major obstacles, Bacon took note of four distinct varieties of distractions that too often prevent us from understanding the world correctly:
• Idols of the Tribe, which arise from human nature generally, encourage us to over-estimate our own importance within the greater scheme of things by supposing that everything must truly be as it appears to us.
• Idols of the Cave, which arise from our individual natures, lead each one of us to extrapolate inappropriately from his or her own case to a hasty generalization about humanity, life, or nature generally.
• Idols of the Marketplace, which arise from the use of language as a means of communication, interfere with an unbiased perception of natural phenomena by forcing us to express everything in traditional terms.
• Idols of the Theatre, which arise from academic philosophy itself, produces an inclination to build and defend elaborate systems of thought that are founded on little evidence from ordinary experience.
Once we notice the effects that these "Idols" have upon us, Bacon supposed, we are in a position to avoid them, and our knowledge of nature will accordingly improve.
In a more positive spirit, Bacon proposed a patient method borrowed from the practice of the new scientists of the preceding generation. First, we must use our senses (properly freed from the idols) to collect and organize many particular instances from experience. Resisting the urge to generalize whenever it is possible to do so, we adhere firmly to an experimental appreciation of the natural world. Only when it seems unavoidable will we then tentatively postulate modest rules about the coordination and reqularity we observe among these cases, subject always to confirmation or refutation by future experiences.
5. Cite some school practices observable in our educational system that are based on the following major philosophies of Education:
a. Idealism
b. Naturalism
c. Pragmatism
d. Progressivism
e. Essentialism
f. Existentialism
Idealism is the philosophical theory which maintains that experience is ultimately based on mental activity. In the philosophy of perception, idealism is contrasted with realism, in which the external world is said to have an apparent absolute existence. Epistemological idealists (such as Kant) claim that the only things which can be directly known for certain are just ideas (abstraction). In literature, idealism refers to the thoughts or the ideas of the writer.
In the philosophy of mind, idealism is the opposite of materialism, in which the ultimate nature of reality is based on physical substances. Materialism is a theory of monism as opposed to dualism and pluralism, while idealism might or might not be monistic. Hence, idealism can take dualistic form and often does, since the subject-object division is dualistic by definition. Idealism sometimes refers to a tradition in thought that represents things of a perfect form, as in the fields of ethics, morality, aesthetics, and value. In this way, it represents a human perfect being or circumstance.
Idealism is a philosophical movement in Western thought, but is not entirely limited to the West, and names a number of philosophical positions with sometimes quite different tendencies and implications in politics and ethics; for instance, at least in popular culture, philosophical idealism is associated with Plato and the school of platonism.
Naturalism originally meant "the idea or belief that only natural (as opposed to supernatural or spiritual) laws and forces operate in the world" and "the idea or belief that nothing exists beyond the natural world."[1]
Natural laws are those we live with daily, e.g., it gets dark at night. Natural laws, arguably, also include the laws of modern science, e.g., those describing electrons, black holes, DNA, and the like. The strict naturalist believes that there are no supernatural agents or events, i.e., that there are only natural objects and events.
The naturalism that insists that "nature is all there is" is called metaphysical naturalism or ontological naturalism or philosophical naturalism.
A more recent kind of naturalism is called methodological naturalism:
Expert testimony reveals that since the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, science has been limited to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena.... While supernatural explanations may be important and have merit, they are not part of science. This self-imposed convention of science, which limits inquiry to testable, natural explanations about the natural world, is referred to by philosophers as "methodological naturalism" and is sometimes known as the scientific method. Methodological naturalism is a "ground rule" of science today which requires scientists to seek explanations in the world around us based upon what we can observe, test, replicate, and verify.[2]
Methodological naturalism is a way of acquiring knowledge. Epistemology is the branch of philosophy concerned with the nature and scope of knowledge.
In the 20th century, W.V. Quine, George Santayana, and other philosophers argued that the success of naturalism in science meant that scientific methods should also be used in philosophy. Science and philosophy are said to form a continuum, according to this view.

Pragmatism is a philosophical movement that includes those who claim that an ideology or proposition can be said to be true if and only if it works satisfactorily, that the meaning of a proposition is to be found in the practical consequences of accepting it, and that impractical ideas are to be rejected. Pragmatism, in William James' eyes, was that the truth of an idea needed to be tested to prove its validity. Pragmatism began in the late nineteenth century with Charles Sanders Peirce and his pragmatic maxim.[1] Through the early twentieth-century it was developed further in the works of William James, John Dewey and—in a less orthodox manner—by George Santayana. Other important aspects of pragmatism include, radical empiricism, instrumentalism, verificationism, conceptual relativity, a denial of the fact-value distinction, a high regard for science, and fallibilism.
Pragmatism has enjoyed renewed attention since the 1960s, when a new analytic school of philosophy (W. V. O. Quine and Wilfrid Sellars) put forth a revised pragmatism criticizing the logical positivism dominant in the United States and Britain since the 1930s, while a new brand infused with themes from the analytic and other traditions, known sometimes as neopragmatism, gained influence spearheaded by the philosopher Richard Rorty, the most influential of the late 20th-century pragmatists.
Contemporary pragmatism may be, in broad general terms, divided into a strict analytic tradition and "neo-classical" pragmatism (such as Susan Haack) that adheres to the work of Peirce, James, and Dewey.

Progressivism is a political attitude favoring or advocating changes or reform through governmental action. Progressivism is often viewed in opposition to conservative or reactionary ideologies. The Progressive Movement began in cities with settlement workers and reformers who were interested in helping those facing harsh conditions at home and at work. The reformers spoke out about the need for laws regulating tenement housing and child labor. They also called for better working conditions for women.
In the United States, the term progressivism emerged in the late 19th century into the 20th century in reference to a more general response to the vast changes brought by industrialization: an alternative to both the traditional conservative response to social and economic issues and to the various more radical streams of socialism and anarchism which opposed them. Political parties, such as the Progressive Party, organized at the start of the 20th century, and progressivism made great strides under American presidents Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and Lyndon Baines Johnson.[1]
Despite being associated with left-wing politics in the United States and Canada, the term "progressive" has occasionally been used by groups not particularly left-wing. The Progressive Democrats in the Republic of Ireland took the name "progressivism" despite being considered centre-right or classical liberal. The European Progressive Democrats was a mainly heterogeneous political group in the European Union. For most of the period from 1942–2003, the largest conservative party in Canada was the Progressive Conservative Party.
In philosophy, essentialism is the view that, for any specific kind of entity, there is a set of characteristics or properties all of which any entity of that kind must possess. Therefore all things can be precisely defined or described. In this view, it follows that terms or words should have a single definition and meaning.[1]
In simple terms, essentialism is a generalization stating that certain properties possessed by a group (e.g. people, things, ideas) are universal, and not dependent on context. For example, the essentialist statement 'all human beings are mortal'.
According to essentialism, a member of a specific group may possess other characteristics that are neither needed to establish its membership nor preclude its membership, but that essences do not simply reflect ways of grouping objects; they also result in properties of the object, as the object can be subjugated to smaller contexts.
Anthropology professor Lawrence Hirschfeld gives an example of what constitutes the essence of a tiger, regardless of whether it is striped or albino, or has lost a leg. The essential properties of a tiger are those without which it is no longer a tiger. Other properties, such as stripes or number of legs, are considered inessential or 'accidental'. [2]
This view is contrasted with non-essentialism, which states that, for any given kind of entity, there are no specific traits which entities of that kind must possess.
Essentialism came under scrutiny and criticism in the mid to late 20th century by the American pragmatist Richard Rorty. Discussion of its possible limitations has taken place among social scientists and biologists as well.
Existentialism is a term applied to the work of a number of philosophers since the 19th century who, despite large differences in their positions,[1][2] generally focused on the condition of human existence, and an individual's emotions, actions, responsibilities, and thoughts, or the meaning or purpose of life.[3][4] Existential philosophers often focused more on what they believe is subjective, such as beliefs and religion, or human states, feelings, and emotions, such as freedom, pain, guilt, and regret, as opposed to analyzing objective knowledge, language, or science.
The early 19th century philosopher Søren Kierkegaard is regarded as the father of existentialism.[5][6] He maintained that the individual is solely responsible for giving his or her own life meaning and for living that life passionately and sincerely,[7][8] in spite of many existential obstacles and distractions including despair, angst, absurdity, alienation, and boredom.[9]
Subsequent existentialist philosophers retain the emphasis on the individual, but differ, in varying degrees, on how one achieves and what constitutes a fulfilling life, what obstacles must be overcome, and what external and internal factors are involved, including the potential consequences of the existence[10][11] or non-existence of God.[12][13] Many existentialists have also regarded traditional systematic or academic philosophy, in both style and content, as too abstract and remote from concrete human experience.[14][15] Existentialism became fashionable in the post-World War years as a way to reassert the importance of human individuality and freedom.[16]
Existentialism is sometimes referred to as a continental philosophy, referring to the continental part of Europe, as opposed to that practiced in Britain at that time, which was called analytic philosophy, and mostly dealt with analyzing language.
6. Is education a privilege or a right? Explain.

Education should be a privilege, just like owning a library card. It CAN be taken if you screw up (just ask my brother)
__________________________________
I disagree. I think all people have a right to an education, but many throw it away. George Washington stated that in order for a democracy to work it needed an educated population and he stressed that education should be available for all. One of the great things about the United States is that there has been an affordable education for all people. There are some, today, who would like to see education as a privilege because the only way to control a population is to make sure they are under educated. First, thing Hitler did when he invaded Poland was to arrested the teachers and close the schools. People who think, read, and understand critical things can not be controlled as well as people who don't.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's sad that some Americans really don't know what the U.S. Constitution and it's elemental Bill of Rights actually establishes.



The Bill of Rights states nothing about education. I have read it as well as taught it. Nothing in the constitution states anything about education as well. As I stated above the founding fathers felt that education was important because without a educated population a democracy can't work. We can see this at work today with people who don't know or understand history, the constitution, and the Bill of Rights.

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_education_a_right_or_a_privilege#ixzz1HZt52TTf
I am so lucky to live in a part of the world where my children can have an education.

Living in the developed world, I sometimes forget that education is a privilege, despite my belief that it should be a right for every child in the world.

Greg Mortenson, author of NYT bestseller Three Cups of Tea, is the director of the Bozeman-based non-profit Central Asia Institute (CAI), and has been building schools, particularly for girls, in mountain areas of Pakistan and Afghanistan. As of 2007, he had built 64 schools which provide education to over 24,000 students, including 14,000 females.

I wanted my 15-year-old son Jordan to watch the special on CNN last night where children in Afghanistan and Pakistan were begging for an education. Kids sat cross-legged on dusty desert floors, watching their teacher write on the outdoor blackboard. The concentration and enthusiasm they expressed, was equivalent to U.S. teenagers being offered the latest, most expensive electronic gizmo. When asked what they wanted more than anything, "an education" was their first response.

When we lived in Belize, my three sons spent hours fishing with big Sergio, our caretaker and his son, little Sergio. One evening we had them over for dinner. Big Sergio, only twenty-one said, "You lucky. You go school, get books and computers. I work in sugar-cane fields at thirteen, to help for food. No money for books, only work for food."

Big Sergio gave my family a gift. No amount of lecturing from me, could ever make my kids understand that in many parts of the world, education is seen as a privilege.

I know they were shocked to hear big Sergio had quit school at thirteen. During the year we spent on Ambergris Caye, my boys showed him how to use a computer and little Sergio how to read and speak English.

efore I begin, I'd like to take a moment and thank my opponent, whoever he/she should be, and I wish you the best of luck.

With that said, my position is pretty simple: I believe that the "free and public education" all Americans have a right to should become a privilege instead of a right.

Article XII of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man (1948) states that:

"Every person has the right to an education, which should be based on the principles of liberty, morality and human solidarity.

Likewise every person has the right to an education that will prepare him to attain a decent life, to raise his standard of living, and to be a useful member of society.

The right to an education includes the right to equality of opportunity in every case, in accordance with natural talents, merit and the desire to utilize the resources that the state or the community is in a position to provide.

Every person has the right to receive, free, at least a primary education."

However, education has become a mandate. Don't go to school and see how long it takes before a truant officer comes knocking. Education is the only "right" like that. If I don't exercise my right to free speech, nothing happens to me, but if I choose not to go to school, my parents get a fine? Does that seem consistent?

I'd also like to call attention to the atmosphere in schools. A large portion of time is spent dealing with students who don't want to attend school, keeping them focused, on task, and in line. With several teachers as family members, I know that there are certain students teachers wish wouldn't show up to school, simply because they're a distraction and nothing ever gets done when they're around. Being a student, I know several others who wish not only to be out of school (does anyone actually love school?) but wish to disrupt everything they can. If I have to go to school, I might as well get something out of it.

It's no secret that America doesn't do as well academically as, say, Japan (and I'm not advocating that the U.S. do anything as severe as the Japanese do). Not to say that the Japanese don't have bad students and America doesn't have good students, but overall, Japan has a better education system that America does. By making education a privilege instead of a right, schools eliminate the distractions, allowing a curriculum to become more advanced, which, in turn, leads to a more intelligent population to those who make an effort to stay involved in the school system.

Parental involvement will also increase with a penalty for failing to make the mark. If a parent realizes that their child won't be able to do much without an education that doesn't have to exist, pressure will come from parents for their children to excel. Suddenly, the child/student isn't always right. There may actually be some merit to what a teacher has to say, contrary to today's belief. The "entitlement generation" believes that everything should just be given to them because they're "perfect", a fact which simply isn't true and promotes the further lack of education in our society.

The fine details of when students would begin to be analyzed for the continuation of their studies (or lack thereof) shouldn't play a role in this debate, as the debate is only over whether this is a good idea or not.

My major arguments this round, then, are:
1) Education has become a mandate
2) Many students take education for granted
3) This leads to a regression in society
4) Parents will get involved when education has the potential to be taken away
5) Making education a privilege will solve many of the problems with the education system
6) This debate is only on whether this is a good idea or not.

With that, I'll open this up to my opponent, but first, a quick word to the judges.

I ask that you vote purely upon the credentials of the debate, and not on personal opinion. I ask that you leave any personal knowledge out of your reason for judging. Finally, when deciding who you will vote for, if you could leave a reason for decision in the comment section, it'd be greatly appreciated. Thanks.
Should schooling, at least to a certain degree, be mandatory?

Yes, it should. Let me explain why.

As it stands, in most states, you are required to attend school until the age of 16. Either then simply giving young people basic knowledge, there are other reasons for schooling:

1. Younger children, mostly coming from broken homes, do not understand the importance of an education. Their parents often do not care to explain the weight of a decision to quit school at an early age and if they drop out of school in an early age, or never go in the first place, it will never be explained to them and they will not understand until it is far to late and they are stuck working in a drive through for the rest of their lives.

Even most younger children coming from good homes will not understand what an education will do for them in the future and until they are old enough to understand, they should be kept in school. Think about it, when you were a child, did you understand that without school you would probably end up in a dead-end job?

Most children think school is a boring place the parents send them and that they would so much rather be home playing video games and hanging out with their friends. They don't know that schooling is muchly needed, and without parents to force them to go or to explain to them why to go, many children would be doomed to drop out and never return.

2. Schools are used to discover abuse. Children who are abused are most often discovered by their schools. If they are allowed to drop out or even forced to drop out by their abusive parents, how many child abuse cases would go undiscovered?

3. A basic understanding of morals and discipline is taught by the schools. Without this, the crime rate will surely go up. If a family doesn't teach their children and the school isn't allowed to teach the children, many more children will grow up without an understanding of discipline and what is right or wrong. Without basic moral belief, many children are doomed to a life of crime and a psychopathic personality. It is important to have schools teach children this, so they can grow up to be good American citizens.

4. It is selfish to force children who do not understand why an education is important out of school before they are capable of understanding. Just because they are disturbing you now, it does not mean they won't grow up to be more responsible and understanding. And if they still dislike school at age 16, they can drop out.

On to my opponents arguments:

"1) Education has become a mandate"

Yes it has, and it is important that education is mandated to at least a certain age. So that way we can be certain the students at hand understand why education is important.

"2) Many students take education for granted"

This is true and it is because many students don't understand the importance of an education quite yet. It is selfish to say 'That kid is annoying, we should kick him out because he is young, foolish, doesn't understand the importance of education, and is disturbing my studies'

What you lack in understanding is that children are just not capable of making the decision to drop out or to be kicked out yet. It isn't until they are older that they are able to do this with an understanding of the repercussions. As far as the argument that goes, 'Disturbances should be removed, no matter the age' I know of many children that acted out in grade school and even Jr. High, that calmed down as they grew older, and become very intellectual students winning scholarships and completing college.

"3) This leads to a regression in society"

The reason why other societies are more advanced in education, is because they have much stricter rules. I highly doubt your or I would be capable of performing up to their level of expectation. Most students spend all of their time in school or studying, otherwise they can not possibly pass the difficult curriculum, their families can not afford their education and they are forced to drop out because of a lack in funds, many incredibly smart students are forced to drop out based on their yearly testing, and the competition is steep. You not only have to be willing to work incredibly hard, you must also be born into a family that values education and holds enough funds to send you to the basics of education, and you have to be born with gifted intelligence. Although the economy might seem better in other countries, their lifestyles and education systems are much more difficult. Do you truly want an education system similar to this, where only the very bright, lucky, and rich succeed?

This education system is also why other countries are less advanced. They have many capable people that never finished school, who do mind numbing jobs instead of jobs that they could of done (Science, research, etc.) and so they use their masses of unintellegent no longer capable people to do grunt work to make imports for the US. they have job shortages in many important fields, such as medically and scientifically. They might have a good economy, but most people are poor and their is a larger space between the rich and the poor then there is here.

So is it true that other countries do better academically then us? Well, it is true that the few students that make it through the education systems tend to have much more knowledge then our students, it isn't true that their education system is better. You see, they grant a few lucky students a pass, and then give the majority a fail, while we give the majority a pass, and a few idiotic students a fail.

You do realize, that currently, the US is dominant in the world, correct? This might have something to do with our education system...

"4) Parents will get involved when education has the potential to be taken away"

Not if the parents never cared in the first place. Then intelligent and capable children will be wasted. In fact it might even promote parents to care even less about their children, if they no longer believe their child has any future, why should they care about feeding, clothing, and giving them a safe place to stay?

"5) Making education a privilege will solve many of the problems with the education system"

And it will cause many more problems. It will allow children to do far more poorly then they ever would have done if they would have been allowed to continue their education, it will force capable but, not very bright children out of an education, it will allow for more things like child abuse to occur, and it will allow for some very capable and bright children to be left behind.

Your saying that we should switch out the problem of 'disturbances' with the problem of 'children being left behind'

"6) This debate is only on whether this is a good idea or not."
Thank you, Bricheze, for accepting my debate, and I'm truly impressed by the speech. Very well thought out!

On to my opponent's arguments:

1. I understand that younger children don't understand the importance of an education, but it's never been said that younger children would be the ones being kicked out. Although maybe parents don't explain these things now, they would certainly become paramount if the possibility existed for a child to be removed from school. It would be explained, and the child would understand. Who honestly wants to see their child fail?

I have been fortunate to have parents that weren't born into the best of situations, but who wouldn't accept that as a disability and fought their way through school, getting degrees in college, and becoming the wonderful role models they are for me today. I wish everyone had that opportunity, but I know not everyone does.

2. Child abuse is a great point, however, breaking free from such a situation would be plenty of motivation to excel through school. If they wish to drop out, thus submitting themselves to more abuse, I guess that's their decision, though I can't for the life of me understand why anyone would do that. And no child-abusing parent would pull their kid out of school. School is a free day-care for them. That's the attitude I want to change. School is so much more than that.

3. Morals are, in part, taught by schools. But should they be? Why isn't it the parent's responsibility to teach right from wrong? Why should schools have to regress into teaching right and wrong instead of teaching us what we actually attend school to do? I'm sorry if I seem so repetitive, but it's this attitude that school's should do everything that causes the problems. Schools have become a second set of parents.

Look back into the past (this isn't an accurate timeline, it just demonstrates my point). Originally, students brought their own lunch to school. Then schools started serving lunch. Then schools started breakfast. Then (some) schools started serving snacks after school. Finally, there is a school program that allows students who meet certain criteria to receive food on Friday afternoon to last them through the weekend. Isn't that sad? What is the role of a parent anymore if the school is just going to do all of this? We can't continue to reinforce these bad habits and continue to teach students that they can rely upon the school to take care of everything for them when they have kids.

4. It's not selfish. I'm not talking about kicking a student out for knocking somebody's books on the floor. It's the kids who make F's year after year. The student's whose only goal is to see how many people they can make laugh in a day. The student who can't wait for the day they turn 16 so they can drop out. The kids who actually cause problems and take the focus away from school, and what it's about.

To defend my own case:

1) Obviously by the time a student is in high school, if they haven't gotten the picture, it's just not gonna happen. Why should our school continue to shell out money for students who aren't going to do anything. They won't get involved, they come to school, cause as many disruptions as possible, and leave. What are they going to do in our society? Those who wish to regress shouldn't be allowed to restrain those who wish to go further. My idea just takes honor's classes or AP classes to a higher level, really.

2) Using the high school student as an example again, if they don't know why they need an education, they should be allowed/forced out of the program. If they don't want it, they don't have to have it. Eventually, they'll see the error in their ways and guess what they're children will do... focus and study and be productive. Versus the current alternative, this student drops out, and when they have children, they simply continue the cycle.

3) And my idea proposes stricter rules, not to the extent that other countries do, they might be a little too strict. I believe students need free time, just not the seven hours they're supposed to be attentive in school. Our government would continue to educate those that wish to be educated, which leaves more funds for federal grants for college. I want an education system where anyone who wants to can succeed. If you want the education, it's all yours. Take as much as you want! An "all you can eat" buffet of education, for a little analogy.

As for the US being dominant, I'll agree to an extent. But how does super-power status tie into the education system?

4) If the parents never cared in the first place, then nothing changes. Under the current system, if parents don't care, the child ends up not caring, which leads to more children not caring... you see the vicious cycle. Under my proposed system, if the parents don't care, then the child either fails or they understand the situation and doesn't get sucked in. I guess I live under a delusion that parents are supposed to want a better life for their child? That parents want their children to have a better life than they did? Should the child fail under parents that don't care, any child they have will care, and so will the next generation, and the next one, and so on.

If you'd like to put it as heartless as "leaving children behind" then yes... but it's more motivation than anything. Those who are going to drop out or do nothing after high school, in my mind, shouldn't bother wasting everyone's time. The plan serves as an incentive to those who straddle the fence, giving them the motivation they need to buckle down and make a good life for themselves.

6) Seeing as there are several aspects that would need major fine tuning, there's no way to actually debate such a policy. I'm proposing a complete 180 of the current system; it's not feasible to create the policy. At best it'd be a rough framework, hence a debate on the idea, not the policy. You've tried to make it a debate on the policy, which has never been laid out.

To extend my case:

I. Failing school isn't an immediate "death sentence". Look at people like Bill Gates who dropped out of high school. I'd say he makes a pretty good life for not having a diploma. Sam Walton, founder of Wal-Mart and Sam's Club, while deceased, had a pretty good, successful idea, but never received an education. Ideas aren't limited to those with educations, but I won't deny that an education is beneficial. It is possible to succeed in this world without an education, it just become more difficult. Those who prove their dedication should be allowed to go above and beyond without being "grounded" by those who are simply looking for entertainment value.

With that I'm going to conclude my speech. I look forward to another interesting speech from my opponent.

1. "I understand that younger children don't understand the importance of an education, but it's never been said that younger children would be the ones being kicked out..."

Actually you said yourself in the comments section that 5th graders should be at an age where they could be kicked out! You really think 10 and 11 year olds should be kicked out of school, for being 'disturbing'?

"It would be explained, and the child would understand."

No most children would not understand. That is why the drop out age is 16, because that is the age when a person can understand repercussions of having no education.

"Who honestly wants to see their child fail?"

Their are parents who torture their children, there is nothing they want to see more then failure, so they can ridicule their child.

Then there are other parents who could care less about what happens to there kid, their never home, they leave just enough food, etc.

2. "Child abuse is a great point, however, breaking free from such a situation would be plenty of motivation to excel through school."

Let's say you grew up in a home where you have been abused by your mother since you were 5. She has told you every day that she is going to kill you if you ever tell someone. Your only escape is school, but there you steal food from other students (because your mother starves you) you smell and look awful (becuase you don't ever get baths or no clothes) and you have really bad grades (because you can't do your homework) your in 5th grade and you school is kicking you out, because your teachers and class mates find you a disturbance since you stink, steal food, and your getting bad grades. Your too afraid to come forward about the abuse, so your basically screwed.

That is the kind of image your painting for several young students when you pass a law such as this.

"If they wish to drop out, thus submitting themselves to more abuse, I guess that's their decision,"

If they are kicked out, like you are suggesting they should be, they are being forced into more abuse. And if they drop out, it would only be because they can't stand the ridicule of other students.

"And no child-abusing parent would pull their kid out of school."

Perhaps they want to force them to get a job, or just work for them all day (cleaning and what not) many child abusing parents also realize their kids get food and a break at school, they want to take that away as well.

3." Morals are, in part, taught by schools. But should they be? Why isn't it the parent's responsibility to teach right from wrong?"

Because some parents aren't their to teach their children right from wrong, whether it is because they work from 7 AM to 12 PM or because they don't care some children ARE neglected, and they still have to be taught how to act civilized. It is just another way to keep our society safer.

"Schools have become a second set of parents."

Why is that a bad thing?

*opponent talks about schools feeding students*

"Isn't that sad?"

Yes, it is sad that some parents refuse to feed their children, but is it sad that their schools are saving them from starvation? Of course not.

"We can't continue to reinforce these bad habits and continue to teach students that they can rely upon the school to take care of everything for them when they have kids."

That's not what their teaching the students. They are teaching the students that while they may be neglected by their parents, someone cares about them, and they will be taken care of. Do you really want to starve these children and force them into a life of crime, by making them steal their food from stores, so they don't starve to death?

4. "The kids who actually cause problems and take the focus away from school, and what it's about."

How can you tell which child is being abused and neglected, and which is being a bully? How can you know when a child is getting straight F's because they are kept busy at home taking care of their brothers and sisters or when they are just being lazy? How can you know when I child deserves to be kicked out?

1) "Obviously by the time a student is in high school, if they haven't gotten the picture, it's just not gonna happen."

Which is why they are allowed to drop out at the age 16.

"What are they going to do in our society?"

If we don't educate them, probably a lot of crime.

2) "Using the high school student as an example again, if they don't know why they need an education, they should be allowed/forced out of the program."

They simply don't think they need an education. When they really do.

"If they don't want it, they don't have to have it."

We should still try really hard to give it to them.

Your alternatives:

New: They'll see the error in their ways and guess what they're children will do... focus and study and be productive. Current: This student drops out, and when they have children, they simply continue the cycle.

The only difference between the old and the new, is that in your new one, they can't come back, as they have been kicked out. It forces them into the current, instead of allowing them to chose.

3) "And my idea proposes stricter rules,"

Rules in which:
*Abused children are forgotten
*5th graders can be kicked out before they understand why they are being educated
* Instead of dropping out, your kicked out, and there is no coming back

"If you want the education, it's all yours. Take as much as you want! An "all you can eat" buffet of education, for a little analogy."

Once again, selfish. Instead of sharing education with kids with less privileges you want it all for yourself. Less competition, more money for your education, and no 'distractions.'

"But how does super-power status tie into the education system?"

I already explained.

4)"if parents don't care, the child ends up not caring, which leads to more children not caring..."

Unless if they go to school and learn about how they can get a good education. It's a slow process, but over time, more children will be spared this hellish lifestyle.

"if the parents don't care, then the child either fails or they understand the situation and doesn't get sucked in."

So it just makes it harder on the child, if they don't get it right away, their kicked out for good. Sounds like the opposite of a solution.

"I guess I live under a delusion that parents are supposed to want a better life for their child?"

Well you do, some parents don't.

"If you'd like to put it as heartless as "leaving children behind" then yes... but it's more motivation than anything."

Motivation or not, it is still just making it more difficult then it is now, and leaving behind more and more children over time. You say this will fix things, but all it will do is make things worse. This widens the gap between the rich and poor, takes away opportunities, and dooms so many capable children to failure.

To extend my case:

I."Failing school isn't an immediate "death sentence". Look at people like Bill Gates who dropped out of high school."

Sometimes it isn't but most time it is. Plus, you said you want to kick people out of school. When that happens it's game over.

"Sam Walton, founder of Wal-Mart and Sam's Club..."

Do you know how lucky you would have to of been, how many connections you would of had to have? Once again, your just taking away opportunities from others, to keep them for more 'focused' kids like yourself. Selfish.

"It is possible to succeed in this world without an education, it just become more difficult."

So your making it more difficult to get an education, increasing the competition for success without an education, and making it nearly impossible to do well at all, unless if you come from a good home.

Kicking children out of school is not the solution. Keeping them in school, giving them hope, working with them, and giving everyone a chance, that is the solution.
7. Explain the following educational Philosophies: (Select any 2)
a. “The end of life is knowledge” by Soctrates
b. Development of the whole man by Comenius
c. “Tabula rasa” Theory by John Locks
d. Education is life by John Dewey
Education is life – John Dewey and the Chinese-American academic family
Filed under: academia, china, confucianism, wikipedia — twofish @ 11:18 pm
In an earlier article I posted the statement “school is life” in the context of the Chinese-American academic family. What I didn’t realize until wikimania was that I was quoting John Dewey’s statement that “education is life.”
http://www.infed.org/archives/e-texts/e-dew-pc.htm
This is an example of how ideas get bounced back and forth between China and the West and how ones view of the world is often influenced by people that you aren’t consciously aware of. In the case of John Dewey, he made a famous trip to China in the 1920′s, and a lot of the ideas that China absorbed from the West in the 1920′s subsequently took a path that was very different from what happened in the West. The educational ideas of John Dewey and a popular belief in the importance of science are something that are more influential in China than in the West. In the case of science, China didn’t experience the counter-culture anti-science/technology backlash of the 1960′s, and in the case of John Dewey, he didn’t become the target of an anti-liberal educational backlash in the 1980′s.
Also (and no one else has made this connection), I’m sure that Dewey’s philosophy of experimental learning really fit in with the pedagological model of the Evidential school which I’ve talked about here.
This points out something cool, which is a neat experiment. Take a belief, any belief, that you have, and try to trace back to the first person who came up with that idea. This points out something else cool, and that is that when an idea comes from China to the West or the West to China, it doesn’t enter into a vacuum, but rather interacts with all of the other ideas that were already there.
Education :

(uncountable) The process or art of imparting knowledge, skill and judgment A good teacher is essential for a good education (countable) Facts, skills and ideas that have been learned, either formally or informally He has had a classical education.
The educations our children receive depend on their economic status.
" The longer I live, the more I realize the impact of attitude on life. Attitude, to me, is more important than facts. It is more important than the past, the education, the money, than circumstances, than failure, than successes, than what other people think or say or do. It is more important than appearance, giftedness or skill. It will make or break a company... a church... a home. The remarkable thing is we have a choice everyday regarding the attitude we will embrace for that day. We cannot change our past... we cannot change the fact that people will act in a certain way. We cannot change the inevitable. The only thing we can do is play on the one string we have, and that is our attitude. I am convinced that life is 10% what happens to me and 90% of how I react to it. And so it is with you... we are in charge of our Attitudes. "

Whole Man Development
Educational development based on the principle that man has a physical body, with sensory perception, able to conceptualise to varying degrees and also with a spiritual nature which is both individual and social whilst being in tune with time and the universe.
For Christians, Jesus Christ is seen to be the true or best example of the Man.
Individuals are born with physical needs and require to learn social skills to survive. When harmony is achieved in this respect, it is possible to seek for his or her spiritual link with the Creation.
The service of Baptism is seen as a symbol of the individual looking beyond the physical necessities toward his more perfected self, which may be considered as movement toward a whole man philosophy.
When a man is sufficiently developed, he is able to perceive the presence of other spirits about him. Ultimately the indwelling spirit of God the Father can be communicated with and also the Holy Spirit, which is recognised to be outside the person's body. However, both Spirits are as One and therefore thoughts are shared.
Although the spiritual realms are unseen, the same principles apply as with the physical social world. Any individual who would wish to survive with other spiritual beings would do well to learn social skills in a family, school or university and indeed within any organisation. Moreover differing individuals acquire different abilities, just as some people are more creative while others have a greater potential toward physical prowess.

Tabula rasa
The theory of innate ideas expresses a belief that humans come into the world with certain cognitive underpinnings as well as a store of ideas which help us to comprehend reality. Leibniz, in a letter to a friend, identifies not only a faculty of knowledge within man but also a disposition toward it, suggesting a more or less typical human mode by which we characteristically interact with the information we can absorb. In this way, notions regarding innate ideas recall certain ancient arguments for inherent intellectual abilities general to mankind. Locke, on the other hand, believes the infant’s mind to be a tabula rasa, or clean slate, which begins to build increasingly complex inklings and eventually concepts and ideas only after the outside world has impressed itself through the senses.
Locke defends himself first from the argument that, since there seem to be both speculative and practical principles that mankind can agree upon, it must be the case that this universal consent arises from various persons being borne with inherent ideas that are similar enough. Locke counters that there is nothing which would necessarily make something which is universally consented to also innate, and further contests the validity of the argument by raising the objection that there does not seem to be anything that can gain an absolutely universal consent. Therefore, the argument itself must not have sufficient ground to stand on. Locke’s next move is to challenge the basic assumption of the theory of innate ideas by pointing out that children and idiots seem to lack any apprehension or thought whatsoever, which would seem to make an absolutely universal consent impossible even theoretically.
However, in defense of innate ideas, one might say that men can come to know such ideas once they come to the use of reason as a tool of discovery and verification. Locke therefore counters that there are an infinite number of meaningless inanities to which people give their assent through reason every day. He believes that if the statement regarding the use of reason is to helpfully apply to their present dispute, it would either have to assert that upon coming into the age of reason one naturally learns of all their congenital principles, or that the use of reason can prove such ideas to be innate. Naturally, Locke finds both possibilities to be false. What Locke is consistently taking issue with is his very stringent interpretation of the argument for innate ideas that relies on the possibility of universal consent. He takes it perhaps more literally than proponents of innate ideas might consider it themselves, but nevertheless does an ample job of demonstrating that, if indeed the argument relies upon absolute universal consent, it cannot seem to make itself stand. There seem to be too many members of mankind that either physically cannot obtain to a knowledge of these innate ideas, or whose mental habits are not conducive to seeking them out with any degree of accuracy or fidelity to truth.
Tabula rasa is the epistemological theory that individuals are born without built-in mental content and that their knowledge comes from experience and perception. Generally proponents of the tabula rasa thesis favour the "nurture" side of the nature versus nurture debate, when it comes to aspects of one's personality, social and emotional behaviour, and intelligence. The term in Latin equates to the English "blank slate" (or more accurately, "erased state") (which refers to writing on a slate sheet in chalk) but comes from the Roman tabula or wax tablet, used for notes, which was blanked by heating the wax and then smoothing it to give a tabula rasa.
In Western philosophy, traces of the idea that came to be called the tabula rasa appear as early as the writings of Aristotle. Aristotle writes of the unscribed tablet in what is probably the first textbook of psychology in the Western canon, his treatise "Περί Ψυχῆς" (De Anima or On the Soul, Book III, chapter 4). However, besides some arguments by the Stoics and Peripatetics, the notion of the mind as a blank slate went largely unnoticed for more than 1,000 years.
In the 11th century, the theory of tabula rasa was developed more clearly by the Islamic philosopher, Ibn Sina (known as "Avicenna" in the Western world). He argued that the "human intellect at birth is rather like a tabula rasa, a pure potentiality that is actualized through education and comes to know" and that knowledge is attained through "empirical familiarity with objects in this world from which one abstracts universal concepts" which is developed through a "syllogistic method of reasoning; observations lead to prepositional statements, which when compounded lead to further abstract concepts." He further argued that the intellect itself "possesses levels of development from the material intellect (al-‘aql al-hayulani), that potentiality that can acquire knowledge to the active intellect (al-‘aql al-fa‘il), the state of the human intellect at conjunction with the perfect source of knowledge."[1]
In the 12th century, the Andalusian-Islamic philosopher and novelist Ibn Tufail (known as "Abubacer" or "Ebn Tophail" in the West) demonstrated the theory of tabula rasa as a thought experiment through his Arabic philosophical novel, Hayy ibn Yaqzan, in which he depicted the development of the mind of a feral child "from a tabula rasa to that of an adult, in complete isolation from society" on a desert island, through experience alone. The Latin translation of his philosophical novel, entitled Philosophus Autodidactus, published by Edward Pococke the Younger in 1671, had an influence on John Locke's formulation of tabula rasa in An Essay Concerning Human Understanding.[2]
In the 13th century, St. Thomas Aquinas brought the Aristotelian and Avicennian notions to the forefront of Christian thought. These notions sharply contrasted with the previously held Platonic notions of the human mind as an entity that pre-existed somewhere in the heavens, before being sent down to join a body here on Earth (see Plato's Phaedo and Apology, as well as others). St. Bonaventure (also 13th century) was one of Aquinas' fiercest intellectual opponents, offering some of the strongest arguments towards the Platonic idea of the mind.
The writings of Avicenna, Ibn Tufail and Aquinas on the tabula rasa theory stood unprogressed for several centuries. In fact, our modern idea of the theory is mostly attributed to John Locke's expression of the idea in An Essay Concerning Human Understanding in the 17th century. In Locke's philosophy, tabula rasa was the theory that the (human) mind is at birth a "blank slate" without rules for processing data, and that data is added and rules for processing are formed solely by one's sensory experiences. The notion is central to Lockean empiricism. As understood by Locke, tabula rasa meant that the mind of the individual was born "blank", and it also emphasized the individual's freedom to author his or her own soul. Each individual was free to define the content of his or her character - but his or her basic identity as a member of the human species cannot be so altered. It is from this presumption of a free, self-authored mind combined with an immutable human nature that the Lockean doctrine of "natural" rights derives. Locke's idea of tabula rasa is frequently compared with Thomas Hobbes's viewpoint of human nature, in which humans are endowed with inherent mental content – particular with selfishness[citation needed] .
Tabula Rasa is also featured in Sigmund Freud's psychoanalysis. Freud depicted personality traits as being formed by family dynamics (see Oedipus complex, etc.). Freud's theories imply that humans lack free will, but also that genetic influences on human personality are minimal. In psychoanalysis, one is largely determined by one's upbringing.[citation needed]
The tabula rasa concept became popular in social sciences in the 20th century. Eugenics (mainstream in the late 19th and early 20th centuries) came to be seen not as a sound policy but as a crime.[importance?] The idea that genes (or simply "blood") determined character took on racist overtones. By the 1970s, some scientists had come to see gender identity as socially constructed rather than rooted in genetics (see John Money), a concept still current (see Anne Fausto-Sterling), although strongly contested. This swing of the pendulum accompanied suspicion of innate differences in general (see racism) and a propensity to "manage" society, where the real power must be if people are born blank.[original research?]
[edit] Literature
William Golding's novel the Lord of the Flies is a narrative unfolding of the human mind as more in tune with the views of Kant: full of innate cognitive and moral devices. Golding wrote the book in hope of convincing his readers that humans are born with an innate evil, and it is the job of humans to contain that evil[citation needed]. At least two of his protagonists had the capacity to resist the call to evil. Whether this represented a residual of socialisation, and they would have eventually turned, or if they contained a biological factor of amity is unresolved.